CVE Intelligence
High

CVE-2026-11331 — Potential wildcard CNAME RPZ policy bypass

An attacker who knows (or guesses) that a resolver uses RPZ with wildcard CNAME policies can craft query names long enough to trigger a NAMETOOLONG error condition during RPZ processing. This is not handled correctly and may lead to defeating the RPZ rule. It also may lead to an unexpected exit of the BIND 9 software. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.16.0 through 9.18.50, 9.20.0 through 9.20.24, 9.21.0 through 9.21.23, 9.16.8-S1 through 9.18.50-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.24-S1.

Published Jul 22, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: isc

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • Technical severity (high)+6
  • Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+3

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
—
No EPSS score.
Affects
ISC
BIND 9
CVSS base
7.5
High · 2 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
Yes
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (ISC BIND 9).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  4. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
ISC BIND 9 ≥ 9.16.0 and ≤ 9.18.50≥ 9.20.0 and ≤ 9.20.24≥ 9.21.0 and ≤ 9.21.23≥ 9.16.8-S1 and ≤ 9.18.50-S1≥ 9.20.9-S1 and ≤ 9.20.24-S1 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
7.5 CVSS 3.1 High 3.9 3.6 security-officer@isc.org via NIST National Vulnerability Database
7.5 CVSS 3.1 High — — isc via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N (score shown at the top: security-officer@isc.org)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-790

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · isc/bind 9
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 7.5
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Undergoing Analysis
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Jul 22, 2026 · isc

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

3 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

ISC
every CVE for this vendor
CWE-790
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • High CVE-2026-13321 DNSSEC Validation Bypass via Out-of-Zone NSEC Next Field Jul 22, 2026
  • High CVE-2026-13204 Unexpected exit in certain situations with NSEC and NSEC3 both present Jul 22, 2026
  • High CVE-2026-11721 Cache poisoning possible with label count discrepancy, RRSIG, and wildcards Jul 22, 2026
  • Medium CVE-2026-10723 Incorrect acceptance of NSEC3 records Jul 22, 2026
  • High CVE-2026-11622 Potential memory usage beyond configured limits Jul 22, 2026
  • High CVE-2026-11605 Unnecessary validation of DNSSEC signed records Jul 22, 2026

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No FIRST EPSS score.
  • No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-11331 is "Potential wildcard CNAME RPZ policy bypass", rated High. It affects BIND 9 (ISC); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.5 describes technical severity. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.